St. Peter’s Square in Vatican City. / Credit: Alexander_Peterson/Shutterstock
Rome Newsroom, Jun 5, 2023 / 12:20 pm (CNA).
Nobel laureates, Grammy-winner Andrea Bocelli, and several former heads of state will join Pope Francis in St. Peter’s Square on Saturday night for the World Meeting on Human Fraternity.
The June 10 event, called “#Not Alone,” will culminate with Pope Francis signing a document calling for a commitment to human fraternity drafted by a dozen Nobel Peace Prize winners together with representatives of former Nobel Prize-winning organizations.
Young people representing different countries will also form “a symbolic embrace” by joining hands in a ring around St. Peter’s Square, according to the Fratelli Tutti Foundation, the sponsor of the event.
Cardinal Mauro Gambetti, the archpriest of St. Peter’s Basilica, described the upcoming meeting as “a great day of celebration and unity inspired by Pope Francis’ encyclical Fratelli Tutti, transcending a vision that restricts social friendship to ethnic or blood ties.”
Speaking at a Vatican press conference promoting the event, Jesuit Father Francesco Occhetta, the head of the Fratelli Tutti Foundation, noted that participants in the event “will be given as a gift a piece of organic soil and seeds to plant and germinate as a symbol of the commitment to guard fraternity.”
Nobel laureates who have confirmed their participation in the World Meeting on Human Fraternity include Iraqi human rights advocate Nadia Murad, Congolese gynecologist Denis Mukwege, and Yemeni Arab Spring leader Tawakkol Karman.
The former presidents of Colombia, Costa Rica, Poland, and Democratic Republic of East Timor — all peace prize winners — will also participate, as well as representatives of several U.N. organizations that have been past recipients.
The World Meeting on Human Fraternity will begin with private meetings of five working groups representing Nobel laureates, the poor, environmentalists, students, and associations.
At 4 p.m. local time, Italian TV presenter Carlo Conti, the former host of Italy’s national Eurovision competition, will kick off an Italian television broadcast of the World Meeting on Human Fraternity event in St. Peter’s Square with performances by Bocelli and other Italian musical artists.
Pope Francis will join the event two hours later to listen to what emerged in the working group discussions, sign the human fraternity document, and join the symbolic embrace. Later, circus performers and street artists will take to the stage in St. Peter’s Square to perform until 10 p.m.
Town squares in Buenos Aires, Argentina; Jerusalem; Nagasaki, Japan; Brazzaville, Republic of Congo; and four other locations in the world will connect live to St. Peter’s Square for the event.
The following is a list of Nobel laureates and Nobel laureate representatives who will participate in the World Meeting on Human Fraternity, according to the Vatican:
Juan Manuel Santos, president of the Republic of Colombia from 2010 to 2018 (Colombia): Nobel Peace Prize in 2016 for his resolute commitment to ending the civil war that has affected his country for 50 years.
Oscar Arias Sánchez, president of the Republic of Costa Rica from 1986 to 1990 and from 2006 to 2010 (Costa Rica): Nobel Peace Prize winner in 1987 for his efforts in promoting peace and stability in Central America, in particular for his efforts to end conflicts in the region and promote dialogue and cooperation between countries.
Lech Wałęsa, president of the Republic of Poland from 1990 to 1995 (Poland): Nobel Peace Prize in 1983 for his nonviolent struggle for human rights and free trade unions in Poland. As leader of the Solidarność trade union, he played a key role in the rights of workers and in the promotion of democracy in his country.
José Ramos-Horta, president of the Democratic Republic of East Timor (East Timor): Nobel Peace Prize winner in 1996 for his work in favor of a just and peaceful solution to the conflict in East Timor.
Jody Williams, founder of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) and president of the Nobel Women’s Initiative (United States): Nobel Peace Prize winner in 1997 for work on banning and clearing landmines.
Shirin Ebadi, president of the Defenders for Human Rights Centre (Iran): Nobel Peace Prize in 2003 for her commitment to the defense of democracy, human rights, and especially women and children in Iran.
Muhammad Yunus, founder of Grameen Bank (Bengals): Nobel Peace Prize in 2006 for his work in promoting economic and social development through the concept of microcredit. Through the Grameen Bank, he provided affordable finance to the poor and helped improve their living conditions.
Leymah Roberta Gbowee, president of Gbowee Peace Foundation Africa (Liberia): Nobel Peace Prize winner in 2011. As a leader of the Liberian women’s movement, she played a vital role in ending the civil war and promoting reconciliation in her country.
Tawakkol Karman, leader of the Arab Spring (Yemen): Nobel Peace Prize in 2011. As a journalist and activist, he defended human rights, democracy, and freedom of expression in his country.
Denis Mukwege, gynecologist (Democratic Republic of Congo): Nobel Peace Prize winner in 2018 for providing medical care and support to women victims of sexual violence in times of war and armed conflict.
Nadia Murad Basee Taha, president and co-founder of Nadia’s Initiative (Iraq): Nobel Peace Prize winner in 2018 for her efforts to end the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war and armed conflict.
Giorgio Parisi, vice president of the Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy): Nobel Prize in Physics in 2021 for the discovery of the interaction between disorder and fluctuations in physical systems, from the atomic to the planetary scale.
Maria Angelita Ressa, president of Rappler Inc. (Philippines): Nobel Peace Prize in 2021 for efforts to safeguard freedom of expression.
International Peace Bureau (IPB): Organization Nobel Peace Prize in 1910 for liaising between the peace societies of various countries and helping them organize world meetings of the international peace movement. Represented by Philip James Jennings, president.
American Friends Service Committee (AFSC): Organization Nobel Peace Prize winner in 1947 for its pioneering work in the international peace movement and compassionate effort to alleviate human suffering, thereby promoting brotherhood among nations. Represented by Hector Manuel Cortez, deputy secretary general.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR): Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the organization in 1954 and 1981 for its commitment to heal the wounds of war by providing aid and protection to refugees from all over the world and for the promotion of the fundamental rights of refugees. Represented by Filippo Grandi, high commissioner.
United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF): Organization Nobel Peace Prize winner in 1965 for its commitment to strengthening solidarity between nations and narrowing the gap between rich and poor states. The organization is dedicated to promoting and advocating for the rights of children, working to improve their health, education, and well-being around the world. Represented by Bo Viktor Nylund, special representative.
International Labour Organization (ILO): Nobel Peace Prize Organization in 1969 for having created international legislation that ensures certain standards for working conditions in each country. Represented by Gianni Rosas, ILO office director for Italy and San Marino.
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW): 1985 Nobel Peace Prize-winning organization to disseminate authoritative information and create awareness of the catastrophic consequences of a nuclear war. Represented by Kati Riitta Maria Juva, co-president, and Onazi David, co-chair.
Peace Operations, United Nations Peacekeeping Forces: Nobel Peace Prize Organization in 1988. Its mission is to prevent armed clashes and create the conditions for negotiations between countries in conflict. Represented by Aroldo Lazaro Saenz.
Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs: Organization awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995 for its efforts to diminish the role of nuclear weapons in international politics and, in the long term, for the elimination of nuclear weapons. Represented by Paolo Cotta Ramusino, general secretary.
International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL): Organization awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 for its work in banning and clearing landmines. Represented by Tun Channareth, ICBL world ambassador, and Denise Coghlan, RSM, member of the board of directors.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): Organization awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005 for its efforts to prevent the use of nuclear energy for military purposes and to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used as safely as possible. Represented by Jacek Andrzej Bylica, IAEA chief of staff.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): Organization awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for its efforts to build and disseminate greater knowledge of man-made climate change and to lay the foundations for the measures necessary to counter them. Represented by Hoesung Lee, president.
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW): Organization Nobel Peace Prize winner in 2013 for efforts to eliminate chemical weapons. Represented by Odette Melon, vice general manager.
International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN): Nobel Peace Prize-winning organization for its work to draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons and its pioneering efforts to achieve a treaty-based prohibition of such weapons. Represented by Daniel Högsta, interim executive director.
Center for Civil Liberties: Nobel Peace Prize Organization in 2022. It has been promoting the right of expression and fundamental rights of citizens for many years. It worked hard to document war crimes, violence, and abuses of power. With its work, it demonstrates the importance of civil society for peace and democracy. Represented by Oleksandra Matvijchuk.
United Nations: Nobel Peace Prize Organization in 2001 for its work for a more inclusive and peaceful world. Represented by Miguel Angel Moratinos, undersecretary-general of the United Nations, who contributed to the creation and launch of the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations (UNAOC) in 2005 and since 2019 has held the position of high representative of the UNAOC.
Oley Back Road, representing Ellen Johnson Sirleaf: Nobel Peace Prize winner in 2011 for her nonviolent fight for women’s safety and their right to full participation in peacebuilding.
[…]
“The Vatican said Wednesday it respects the decision by the Court of Appeals in Victoria”
Well, that makes one of us who respects it.
“The complexity of the search for the truth in this matter has tested many” (Archbishop Comensoli Melbourne) is typical of politically correct blather. There was absolutely zero complexity in this prejudiced lynching. Conviction had to rest on guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Conviction was instead pronounced by the actual morally guilty on the slightest possibility within the spectrum of possibilities. That charge immediately following Mass in a crowded Cathedral he induced two altar servers in the sacristy to perform sodomy. Witnesses denied testimony the charade of justice to the eternal shame of Australia and may I suggest the very possible Eternal condemnation of those who convicted Cardinal Pell. Rarely in history has so obvious a case of vengeful injustice against a Catholic bishop been so evident. The Vatican “respects” the decision of classic Australian Kangaroo Justice. Some Australian Lawyers have commented on this site defending irrational Catholic hate in the verdict. God help them also. The sense given by this Vatican and cowardly prelates is that there is more injustice in store for those who uncover and seek justice as did Cardinal Pell regarding misuse of finances within this Vatican. That is any injustice exposed by the faithful. Ultimately the unjust will lose at terrible price unless they repent.
While the bureaucrats at the Holy See are ducking for cover, I shall continue to believe that Cardinal Pell is innocent for as long as he claims that he is. — Australia’s first martyr in the making.
He is indeed a martyr. An atonement for the hundreds of perverted and weak bishops and priests.
They might as well have done this at Tabatha.
He is indeed a martyr. An atonement for the hundreds of perverted and weak bishops and priests.
They might as well have done this at Tabatha.
It becomes a travesty of justice knowing Cardinal Pell is sitting in prison unable to say Mass while his accuser is free.
The accuser knows full well his testimony is false due to the simple & straightforward fact that he testified that Cardinal Pell held his vestment wide open. All Catholics understand the seamless vestment is not capable of being held split open & yet the jury upon hearing this evidence convicted Cardinal Pell anyway. Shame on them & shame on the appellate court.
Not surprising considering the rampant anti-Catholic bigotry in Australia.
Cardinal Pell , sharing the first name of St.George the dragon slayer , with our Holy Father – before he took on the name of St.Francis ..
St.George and England and Australia connections , may be realms of deep wounds against The Church and all that too .
EWTN commentary mentioned doubts whether the Cardinal has that much ‘fight ‘ left in him any more , because of his age too ..
there in might be the mystery ..
Australia to Argentina, may be a deep sadness , in the Fatherly hearts, of not having foreseen the tsunami that was building up – not due to any personal
neglects , yet … thus , may be even a desire to be the victim , for both sides – for the sake of the falsely accused , which would include The Father Himself, who is the One who gets accused for the human pride , hardness of hearts and the workings of the enemy spirits that are invited in , many walking away , even daring to deny the very existence of The Father ..
the desire too , likely , to help augment focus and thus efforts , to prevent future instances , by a more aggressive implementation may be of , of all the arsenals of The Church , such as ministry of deliverance , as suggested in this article – https://spiritdailyblog.com/commentary/a-simple-inconvenient-truth
Thank God that the simple ministries that do same , such as the Heart of The Father ministries are getting more attention as well .
Would even nonconventional means such as ongoing Eucharistic cruises , esp. around these island nations , be considered , as the appeal process is being looked into – there are persons in the charismatic circles that have reported miraculous results from same .
Those Vilnius images of Mercy too , should any church in our times be without a large enough image of same, to also bring honor to The Father , since this icon seems to have the most Fatherly look AFIK.
The Cardinal , possibly have the means to have Adoration , where he is at – same might have been true for the Holy Apostles too, in their last days , in jails ..
thus joining in spirit with many , to praise The Father , opening the prison doors of those in the fires of purgatory or of the world as well ..
Holy Father’s initiative to share the rosaries in Syria – hope those who can help him to do so for the Divine Mercy images also would take note .
Meanwhile, believers , with that sense of grief too , joining the victims , who are on both sides in one sense in this case , thus aid the Queen of Heaven , to bring the reign of peace , healing the deep wounds and driving out the enemy strong
holds of the dragon from one end to the other .
St.George and Mary , Queen of Heaven pray for us all .
There is a wave of hatred to Catholic clergy and the Church all over the world. The few irregularities committed by some clergy may be one reason for it. Here the judge never cared to hear the plea of the accused. A real judge should hear both sides and consider the case and not fully believing the accuser. Also I will argue that if the accuser had a complaint it should have been registered within a week or month of the happening. Simply accusing someone of immorality after many years is sheer nonsense,but rules do not invalidate . There should be a law of limitation as otherwise it is an encouragement for revenge by people any time.
K. C. Thomas:
“Simply accusing someone of immorality after many years is sheer nonsense,but rules do not invalidate. There should be a law of limitation as otherwise it is an encouragement for revenge by people any time.”
***********
I would agree that making accusations years after a crime has been alleged to occur is problematic, but what other recourse is there for young children who have been victimized & frightened by an adult perpetrator? They are easily threatened & manipulated into silence by the abuser & may not have the courage to confront him until they’re adults.
I worry also about our present anti-Catholic atmosphere & have real doubts about Cardinal Pell’s verdict. But beyond giving victims delayed justice you have to remember that there are dangerous predators who will continue to harm children unless someone speaks out. Even if it’s been
decades since their first crimes.
However to have real justice you have to have real evidence & corroboration-both seem scarce in Cardinal Pell’s verdict.
While some are in a cozy monastery, this honorable servant is in prison. One of the signs of satan, I understand, is he turns things upside down and calls evil good and good evil. One of Mother Angelica’s famous lines is “I wouldn’t want to be standing near them on judgment day.”
There wouldn’t be many convicted criminals who’ve enjoyed as much slavering support as George Pell.
George Pell is no Ned Kelly. Why, then, is so much energy being devoted into trying to make him a folk hero for conservatives?
There is still a chance, however small, that he might yet beat the charges in the High Court, but it’s not much of a chance, and whichever way that final appeal goes, there is one outcome you can bet on with confidence: Pell’s defenders will do immense damage to the institution of the courts and the justice system as a whole in the prosecution of their culture war.
Because that’s what this is. The extra-judicial defence of George Pell is not a fight for truth or righteousness – it is simply a continuation of politics by other means.
It is disgraceful.
The systemic abuse of children by paedophile clergy is not a myth or a meme. It is a massive and well-documented atrocity that has taken the lives of an unknown number of victims, and caused vast suffering to many, many more.
It has blighted the existence of survivors and their families and done incalculable damage to the church itself.
A truly conservative response to the conviction of so senior a figure as Pell would not seek to diminish or even negate his crime. A true conservative would accept the vital importance of a perpetrator accepting personal responsibility for his actions and attempting to make amends for them, no matter how impossible that restitution might be.
Instead we get conspiracy theories, special pleading and brazen contempt not just for the court and its officers but also for the victims of the crime.
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/defending-the-indefensible-pell-is-no-ned-kelly-20190827-p52l3l.html
“The extra-judicial defence of George Pell is not a fight for truth or righteousness – it is simply a continuation of politics by other means. It is disgraceful.”
No, your cynical and, yes, politicized, slander of those who believe, with good reason, that Pell is innocent, is slanderous.
Carl, you quote from the article that is linked at the bottom of my post. They are not my words and I believe the situation is much more complex and multi layered that those words suggest. I also believe there is an element of truth to the opinions he has written about. Perhaps I should be more careful in what I post. It is worth stating that there has been numerous statements that have directly attributed motive to my expressed opinions that are unfair, untrue and way off the mark.
……and now I’ve had time to think over the choice of words, I think it a grave injustice that you chose the word slander as a descriptor of my commentary. It does come over as intimidation and a thinly veiled threat and completely unnecessary given the effort I have made to explain myself over many posts.
“I think it a grave injustice that you chose the word slander ”
Quite true; it’s an injustice to the language. It’s written, and therefore I believe the correct word is libel.
Furthermore Carl, It would seem to the casual observer, of which I hope there are many, that It would suit your narrative if my motive was essentially political. I am not sorry to inform you that my motivation is on behalf of the many children, now adults and their families, their broken hearts, bodies and minds, who have suffered abuse under Cardinal Pells watch! Details of which you lot seem to think have no relevance to the legal proceedings because no detailed analysis appears within the articles written so far. So not without reason, my question remains unanswered as to why not! The complete and utter betrayal of their innocence and the many unholy manoeuvrings to negate their just cause, are the subject of my posting here. This is the motivation i have had from since the 1990’s way before I heard anything about culture wars political correctness or Liberal Conservative catholic warring! You state unreservedly of my ” cynical and, yes, politicized, slander of those who believe, with good reason, that Pell is innocent, is slanderous.”
You sir do not know the motive of my heart!
“my motivation is on behalf of the many children, now adults and their families, their broken hearts, bodies and minds, who have suffered abuse under Cardinal Pells watch! Details of which you lot seem to think have no relevance to the legal proceedings”
Because they are not relevant to the legal proceedings, which are about this one person’s accusations about specific acts that he says Cardinal Pell committed.
I have read and written extensively about the Cardinal Pell file.
Many experienced people of good judgement, (including Melbourne Archbishop Peter, international Australian journalist Andrew Bolt, counsel Robert Richter and the lawyer Jesuit Father Frank Brennan S.J.), and who have known Cardinal Pell personally have declared Cardinal Pell to be innocent, not merely not guilty.
My views include that:
1) the search for the truth is continuing
2) the legal system in Australia is not a system designed to establish the truth
3) the chances of Cardinal Pell having a successful Australian High Court legal appeal are low, (his state level appeal was lost)
4) BUT a subsequent application under human rights law to the European based international court of justice has a higher probability of finding Cardinal Pell innocent, based on the public material available to date
To date not one relevant person has stated that they saw the Kid and Choirboy, (the Kid’s fellow chorister, now deceased), leave any post-mass procession and also no relevant person has stated that the Kid and the Choirboy returned to the group of practising choristers at a later time and in a disturbed and alcohol affected state (as would be consistent with the evidence given by the Kid).
To date there is no statement that any contemporaneous material has been sought that would tend to corroborate or contradict either the Kid or Cardinal Pell.
I note that those who claim to have professionally considered the allegations of the Kid, (including the police, the DPP and investigative journalists), have not produced any such material at all.
Regards to all from Peter Halliday at peter.halliday@gmail.com
Mr. Hallam,
I have no idea how old you are, but I can easily imagine how you would have held forth in 1982: “Some mothers have committed infanticide, and therefore Lindy Chamberlain has been rightfully convicted, and anybody who says that she was wrongfully convicted is showing brazen contempt not just for the court and its officers but also for the victim of the crime.”
The disgrace is that you are so fixated on politics and revenge that you seem not to care at all that an examination of the testimony at the trial – and no, I wasn’t there, but I’ve read the reports of it and I’ve read the excerpts provided in the appellate court’s decision, and the reports and excerpts agree – shows that the case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Or are you of the opinion that Judge Mark Weinberg was part of this “disgrace” because he pointed out how flawed the decision was?
“The systemic abuse of children by paedophile clergy is not a myth or a meme. It is a massive and well-documented atrocity that has taken the lives of an unknown number of victims, and caused vast suffering to many, many more.”
Nobody is saying that the abuse is a myth, or that it wasn’t an atrocity that cause horrible suffering. That has nothing to do with whether Cardinal Pell committed this crime.
Every one of those clergy who committed the atrocity to which you refer is a man. Therefore, is someone ever accuses you of sexually assaulting him and tells a story composed of unlikelihood piled on impossibility, with no witnesses who support his story and many who testify that it couldn’t be true, will you be perfectly content if you are convicted in spite of the many shadows of doubts that should have arisen in the jury’s minds? After all, you are a man, and the crimes that were committed were heinous, and therefore you must be guilty.
“George Pell is no Ned Kelly.” I had to look up Ned Kelly, since I’d never heard of him. You’re quite right, Cardinal Pell is no Ned Kelly. Kelly was guilty, and there was plenty of evidence to prove it.
My concern about the conviction is the lack of evidence and the fact that the accuser’s story is full of things that are at the very best unlikely. I haven’t paid as much attention to Mr. Weigel’s discussion of the toxic atmosphere surrounding the case, since I’m less concerned with the reasons for the injustice of the conviction than the fact that it happened. But every post that you have made has pretty much proved Mr. Weigel’s point. You address not at all the many concerns that I, and others, have posted: about the whole “Operation Tethering” which started with a presumption that the Cardinal must be guilty of something and went hunting for someone, anyone, who would accuse him; about the accuser’s shifting story; about the fact that the accuser’s claims are contradicted by the testimony of many other witnesses. All you do is say that terrible things have happened, and that you dislike Cardinal Pell, and that everyone who doesn’t accept the verdict is focused on politics. In other words, you are a living exemplar of the toxic climate Mr. Weigel mentions. I’m left thinking that if the jury was composed of peoople who, like you, have a massive prejudice, a blind spot, a feeble grasp of logic, and a very strange concept of justice, it explains the conviction in the face of what any reasonable person must consider to be reasonable doubts.
“the victims of the crime.”
There was only one complainant. The other boy denied that he had ever been assaulted. I’ve read the claims that “Oh, but often it’s years before a victim is able to talk about it.” I daresay that’s true; but to claim that even though the second boy never made any accusations that would be just what one would expect of a victim” is the invisible man argument. “There’s an invisible man in that chair.” “I don’t see anything.” “Of course! That’s exactly what you would expect to see if there’s an invisible man in the chair!”
“A truly conservative response to the conviction of so senior a figure as Pell would not seek to diminish or even negate his crime. A true conservative would accept the vital importance of a perpetrator accepting personal responsibility for his actions and attempting to make amends for them, no matter how impossible that restitution might be.”
And again, you’re ignoring that fact that we don’t believe that he is guilty, and not for political reasons. A truly conservative response to a perceived injustice is to fight against it. That’s what we’re doing.
LESLIE!! you go girl!!!! Exactly as I would have said it if I had half your brain!!!!L
Well, thank you!